Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the workflow intent (feeding a customerId into invoice drafts) but says nothing extra about pagination, ordering, or result limits beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope (a company) and the purpose come before anything else. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin: it never explains pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a caller receives, and it leaves three of four parameters semantically undefined. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% – only companyId carries a description ('Company ID'). The page, search, and perPage parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description does not compensate with any filtering or pagination semantics. It fails to fill the coverage gap for a 4-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List invoice customers') scoped to 'a company', and even motivates the purpose (assigning a customerId to invoice drafts). The verb clearly separates it from the sibling create-customer, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'so invoice drafts can be assigned a customerId' implies the workflow context in which this tool is used, which is useful direction. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.